DI vets, I'd love to hear your opinions ...

I just had my second player leave early from Montana in two seasons. He was a redshirt soph pf, I'll post his ratings below. Last season it was a pg who was definitely excellent for the Big Sky, but wasn't any better than most starting pg's at all the BCS schools. Both recruits were 2-stars (#47 pg and #57 pf).

First of all, I think it's ridiculous to consistently lose 2-star recruits at a low-mid school, especially when the UConns and UNC's are keeping players who are significantly better. FWIW, during recruiting I got the "rides the bus" type evals from both.

But my next part of the problem is this: After my recent Elite 8 season, my prestige stayed at a B. (And please, no CS-speak telling me it may have gone from a low-mid B to a high-mid B ... you go 30-3 w. an Elite 8 @ Montana, you deserve a clear bump.)

So essentially, I'm getting penalized for winning like a big school by losing these early entries, but not getting the prestige bump that is supposed to go with the winning. Simply put, I'm getting f'd on both ends.

(And I'm not suggesting that my prestige should be able to rise as quickly as Duke's, only that it can't be this constricted and also yank my players early as if I were a BCS school. FWIW, I played the #1 non-con SOS, with 9 of 10 teams finishing with an rpi of 64 or better and wins @ UCLA, @ Texas, vs. Stanford, etc.)

James "Traitor" Willis

Athleticism	96	5
Speed	58	1
Rebounding	95	-1
Defense	71	5
Shot Blocking	97	3
Low-post	87	1
Perimeter	43	1
Ball Handling	25	5
Passing	33	3
Work Ethic	66	8
Stamina	74	4
Durability	55	2
FT Shooting	B-

And this all fits neatly into my major pet peeve about DI: That so much of who gets to challenge for the title comes down to luck (i.e. who loses players early and who doesn't). UConn kept a trio of stud players that could've , they make it to the NT game. Then I see teams like Iowa and Texas have what should be potential NT-winning seasons decimated by 4-5 early entries and they crash the PIT or sneak into the NT.

My frustration is also increased by the fact that my best player sustained a significant injury (77 health) in the S16 game. I played him in the E8 game against the soon-to-be champs, and we lost by one in OT. I don't think it's a stretch to say we win that game if my best player is healthy. (And we had already beaten the team waiting in the F4 by 15 in non-con.) Again ... luck rearing it's huge, ugly head in deciding the national champion.

I'm not saying that luck has no place in this game. Luck is rampant, having a hand in bad shooting nights, foul trouble, etc. etc. every game, and I'm OK with that. That's a necessary part of the game. But the kind of bold-faced, hugely impactful luck that I'm talking about ... I think it's terrible for HD.

And the other part is that teams get rewarded for a bad season. Ga Tech has a down year? Great, as a reward you get to keep your 905-rated center! While teams like Montana get their players ripped away.

So I've got two issues here:

1. The huge luck/randomness of early entries playing too big a role in deciding which teams are NT contenders.

2. The unfair dichotomy of Montana and other similarly successful low-mids getting treated like BCS schools when it comes to early entries, and low-mids when it comes to prestige.

So DI vets, I'm curious: Do you think I have a legit gripe with either or both of those? Or am I just whining?

I agree with both

I think the coach of UConn has one of the biggest gripes in the history of HD after the ludicrous result of last night.

I agree with - uconn's gripe (low rated / well coached mid majors winning it all is sort of a current trend in the game) as well as getting EE'd at Montana type schools

I lost a EE guy a few seasons back the just devastated my UWGB team, problem is you can't recover, while at UNC or duke, they just recruit a new 750 guy to take the EE's place - I wrote a ticket up after my issue, told CS it is mean spirited and spiteful to take a 2 star away from low / mid majors, while A+ schools retain 900 level guys? Believe it or not, they did not seem to care?

I think the low / mid prestige thing might be tweeked a bit, but overall, it may be about 'right' as it stands, I do think there is sort of a 'glitch / issue' to prestige that will allow your montana team's prestige to rise more, if you do stay there it will be interesting to watch. issue is the last 4 years is not the only factor in prestige, the other factor is where you started from, so two identical resumes end up with different prestiges after 4 identical seasons???

I agree with the luck part of your analysis, there is enough luck built into the engine, without having EE's and injuries mess with things, but this is complex, since I think what we are asking for is when super teams win it all, they get hit pretty hard by EE's, but when over achieving mid majors win it all or get close, they get to keep all their guys. Another ? is what do you do with underachieving super teams??? might be the best answer is no EE's, which I cannot see CS ever agreeing to????

finally, I for one hate injuries, I couple them with delimna's, nice real life thoughts, but this is not a real life game. In real life, often, the injuried guy's replacement turns out just as good or better, in this game, injuries often stop a team cold

I think the EE system is fundamentally broken

1. there is no predictive information that is usefull - scores of players get scouting info about likely to leave early....IF a smallish group of players got this, it might be useful

2. too much variability - its like there is a large group of kids who might go and then a random process among them - which can create the scenarios described above

my conclusion - make it a lot better or get rid of it

Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 10/20/2009
I think the EE system is fundamentally broken

1. there is no predictive information that is usefull - scores of players get scouting info about likely to leave early....IF a smallish group of players got this, it might be useful

2. too much variability - its like there is a large group of kids who might go and then a random process among them - which can create the scenarios described above

my conclusion - make it a lot better or get rid of it

I think this would be a great addition - there should be only about 10-15 kids each season who get this message, and if they get it, they should absolutely leave early, regardless of their stats or their team's postseason performance. Those can factor into whether or not they leave after their FR, SO or JR seasons, but they should definitely leave early.

I agree on the injury front, especially because there is no way for a coach to prevent them (and don't take this to mean that I like the update involving dur). In games like HBD you have your medical budget, at least a coach has some control over his injuries there.

You bring up a good point with EE's and IMO it is a very very fine line, yes I do think (assuming that EE's are here to stay) Montana should lose players and should not be exempt but I see exactly where you are coming from daalter and the answer is to have EE's not be based on how well your team does in the postseason. (who woulda thought?)

I agree dalter. I just think it's completely randomize per player, not depending on their school. They will leave when they reach a certain class and their school goes "x" far into the tournament.

The Yale team that won it all had only 3 seniors and no-early entries.

I agree 100 percent, been saying the same thing for about a year or so.

OldR- you think losing 1 guy with a mid major team was devastating, I lost FIVE early entries one year at a mid major and had previously lost THREE two seasons prior to that

Early entries are pretty screwed up, but they've been that way for a long time. I don't think it makes sense to have different sets of rules for "low" or "mid" majors vs. BCS teams when it comes to early entries. I do think it makes sense to have early entries tied to something more logical than a random combination of ratings/postseason success/luck. There are plenty of ways to make it better, but the first step is for WIS to actually want to make it better, which I don't think is the case.

As for prestige, I don't have any problem with Montana having a much more difficult time increasing their prestige than someone in a top conference. I can see how it is frustrating though when combined with the terrible early entry logic and a bit of bad luck.

Agree whole heartedly. EEs are "realistic" but within the greater scope of inherent HD unrealism, they mostly add to customer dissatisfaction. Get rid of them. Injuries as well. NO ONE would miss them.